The Problem with Vampires…

[zahncisten]

So, lately, I’ve been happily trapped in the world of Skyrim (in VorpX of course 😃). I tried extra hard on this playthrough to avoid vampires (because I always seem to get “vampired” (OK, I know it’s not a verb, but I turn into a vampire). It happens to me every time, and I really don’t want to become a vampire! So anyway, I had pretty much finished the main story and some other quest arcs. But I thought, well, maybe it’s time to switch to a new game (Yes, even vampires have silver linings lol 😜). I started playing Prey (2017) again, and what a blast! VorpX works so well with it. I played for a while in Z-Adaptive, because, wow, I am so impressed with how much better the Z-Adaptive works in 19.1.0.
After I played for a while, with all settings maxed out, and getting awesome performance, I thought I should really check out the G3D and see if that was really different. It was great! Every-once-and-a-while I had to switch back to Z-Adapt, because I’d start dropping FPS, but mostly it worked great.
I know there’s been a little negativity lately, but seriously, VorpX is getting better all the time. There might be some smaller use-cases for this person or that person where some feature is not how they would like, but you just can’t beat VorpX. And if you haven’t tried Prey (2017) with VorpX, then you have to! It’s great.

[raidouk3]

I think, the person that gives VorpX a try, cant go back to play games flat anymore, I made a leap of faith when i bought it, and for me, is the best Vr related that i have bought, and it keeps getting better everytime.

[matteo39]

I never use z-adaptive, Always z-normal..

Which is the difference?

[zahncisten]

@raidouk3 I absolutely agree. I wouldn’t be using VR if it wasn’t for VorpX. It is genius. I can’t imagine playing games without it. Not with the same level of immersion and enjoyment for sure.
Occasionally, I sort of take it for granted, but then it’ll blow my mind and I really enjoy it.

@matteo39 I can’t really say with technicality. Ralf or RJK_ or someone else might be able to give a more accurate description. But it’s sort of a middle ground between G3D and Z-Norm. Some features have more definite depth, like G3D, but other features have a more Z-Normal approach. I’m probably explaining this very badly. But, in my opinion, Prey (2017) really showcases how awesome Z-Adaptive is. It’s worth trying out. In the end, G3D is the best, but Z-Adaptive is really interesting.

[Ralf]

You can think of Z3D Adaptive as having autofocus. With Z3D Adaptive the stereo images always converge at the center of the view, taking into account how far the object in the center is away from your eyes. Also a dynamic depth of field effect is applied based on this information similar to how objects out of focus get blurred in reality.

All in all this is closer to how the human eye actually works in reality and thus can enhance the depth perception in some games.

It has a few drawbacks though. The main drawback is the focus being always in the screen center instead of where your eyes actually look at. Most of the time you look at the center, so that’s not a big deal usually, but a fully correct ‘autofocus’ would require a headset with eye tracking. Z3D Adaptive also doesn’t work well with third person games if the center of the view is covered by the player character.

So for games with the screen center being coverd by the player character Z3D Normal is usually the better choice, for first person or over the shoulder games Z3D Normal/Adaptive is largely a matter of taste. Both have their pros and cons.

[zahncisten]

Thanks Ralf! I appreciate the explanation. Z Adaptive is pretty ingenious. Seriously, it works so well in Prey (2017). I struggle between it and G3D, because they both look so good in Prey. I can see what you’re saying about eye focus. That’s noticeable when I look at peripheral wall objects and doorways as I look into a room from a door in view.

[Author]

Posts